DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to arguments filed 08/19/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
1. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lozano (2019/0228195) as modified by Kawashime (2012/0261474) and Dowski (2014/0078314).
As to claims 1 and 6: Lozano teaches a method, comprising:
capturing, via an image sensor of a computing device, a first image in a frame sequence using a first autofocus region having a first position (116, 126 in a second position, figure 1);
detecting a region of interest having a second position in the image, the region of interest containing a barcode (figure 4 showing multiple areas of interest in the same image);
in response to receiving, at an autofocus controller (118), a failure to decode the region of interest, generating, by the autofocus controller, a second autofocus region based on the second position of the region of interest in the image, the second autofocus region configured for capturing a second image in the frame sequence via the image sensor (figure 8, paragraph 0008, wherein the system images the code and uses autofocus to determine different features when a failure occurs).
Lozano is silent as to that the second region of interest is made after an attempt to decode the region of interest fails.
Kawashime teaches reading a code symbol (figure 12, SA1) with an autofocus liquid lens (SA2, paragraph 0095), and when decoding fails (SA4), a second autofocus region is selected (SA6, wherein a closed loop algorithm different from the open loop algorithm in SA2 is used, paragraphs 0106-0108, figure 13 showing the different FoVs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Lozano with the teachings of Kawashime so that the period of time required to autofocus is reduced (Kawashime, paragraph 0021).
Lozano as modified by Kawashime is silent as to that the second autofocus region has a size and shape based on dimensions of the region of interest.
Dowski teaches that the second autofocus region has a size and shape based on dimensions of the region of interest (paragraph 0087, claim 1, figure 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Lozano as modified by Kawashime with the teachings of Dowski so that a higher density of data from a code might be extracted (paragraph 0145, Dowski), thereby improving the quality of the scan.
As to claims 2 and 7: Lozano teaches detecting an additional region of interest in the first image, the additional region of interest containing an additional barcode; and
in response to receiving, at the autofocus controller, a failure to decode the region of interest and the additional region of interest, generating the second autofocus region based on the positions of the region of interest and the additional region of interest (figures 4, 8, showing a second autofocus region using a part of the imager with a different FOV and a different autofocus parameter, which then scans a different region with a different code).
As to claims 3 and 8: Lozano teaches detecting an additional region of interest in the first image, the additional region of interest containing an additional barcode; and
in response to receiving, at the autofocus controller, a failure to decode the region of interest and the additional region of interest, generating the second autofocus region and a third autofocus region based on a position of the additional region of interest (figure 11 showing multiple FOVs and therefore multiple regions of interest based on each angle of incidence, also explained in paragraphs 0052-0054).
As to claims 4 and 9: Lozano teaches capturing a third image using the third autofocus region, in sequence with capture of the second image (figure 8 explains imaging the regions repeatedly until focus is achieved).
As to claims 5 and 10: Lozano teaches that the second autofocus region has a smaller area than the first autofocus region (abstract).
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 6 are amended to include that the second autofocus region is custom sized to the dimensions of the object.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new rejections.
Claims are newly rejected by Lozano in view of Kawashime (2012/0261474) and Dowski (2014/0078314).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TARDIF whose telephone number is (571)270-7810. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-6:30. If the examiner cannot be reached by telephone, he can be reached through the following email address: david.tardif@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G Lee can be reached on (571)272-2398. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DAVID TARDIF
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DAVID TARDIF/
Examiner, Art Unit 2876
david.tardif@uspto.gov
/MICHAEL G LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights